The IFS left a third out?

After hearing the IFS and their ‘in depth analysis’ of what’s on offer on May 7^th I couldn’t help thinking that the institute were falling victim to their own proclamation that, the parties through their respective campaigns, were barely communicating the ‘broad outlines of choice.’

They had left out the full array of choice in their analysis, providing a breakdown of spending on the largest four parties only, inclusive of the SNP.
The IFS’s comments regarding the SNP plans were surprising however. Although there has been plenty of ‘squawking’ from the Sturgeon camp about how a vote for the SNP would mean a journey toward ending austerity, it seems that, ‘computer says no Sturgeon.’ The SNP just like all the main parties have signed up to a freezing, or an effectual cut to public spending of some sort.

According to the IFS, irrespective of an increase in borrowing and backing various Labour plans on tax (i.e. the mansion tax) The SNP’s pledged economic policy would mean a freeze on some public departments in order to achieve this 0.5% real terms increase in spending. Without a certain amount of austerity in the SNP’s plans there would be none of the proposed giveaways like the whopping 4.5 billion on welfare.  

The IMF was I suppose handy in ingratiating us, the awaiting politicos, with this sort of analysis. However, I have to wonder if in leaving aside the other prospective parties, the opportunity of a cheeky campaign triumph has been lost. Although it is nice to wax lyrical about the Tories’ looming £30 Billion of cuts to unidentified departments. Or how the £8 billion of NHS spending that the Lib Dems have pledged will be funded (by a very flimsy £10 Billion tax avoidance figure.) The Greens and the Kippers could really do with a win. And by leaving out these minority parties from the conversation doesn’t this play into a wider narrative surrounding disenfranchisement, in not having parties, which after all represent a fairly large proportion of the electorate (about a third) not represented in this analysis. David Dimbleby did refer to the IMF as the ‘gold standard,’ during BBC’s Question Time this week. If the ‘Gold Standard’ isn’t even considering your existence that may feel a little oppressive.    

Now, I did mention this subject recently but it is timely as only this morning, Mary Dejevsky of the Independent wrote a piece in which she stated, “It could be that…when they [the Greens UKIP etc] wake up on May 8^th to discover that the seats won by their parties bear no relation to the votes cast.” If Mary is right, and she is not alone in this view, is it not such that the IMF, media organisations and all those with a social responsibility to the electorate should be wholly unbiased in their coverage. After all we are talking about a third of our country.